Federal Election 2019: Meet the Australian Country Party

Summary

Policies & Commentary

I reviewed the ACP back in November last year, and was therefore planning only a very brief update for the Federal Election, but I received a note from their new Chairman, Glenn O’Rourke, back in January, informing me that the party had undergone a complete reorganisation and was changing its policies, and politely requesting that I update my review ‘as while your overview here was correct at the time of publishing, it no longer reflects who or what the Party is Post the Victorian Election’.

I have to say, this response won significant points with me, since I had some pretty strong objections to the policies the ACP took to the Victorian State Election, and advised readers not to vote for them.  I’m pretty accustomed to members of the parties I review getting cross when they read what I’ve written about them, and coming into the comments to berate me, and I’m reasonably tolerant of an initial angry reply, because I *am* fairly sarcastic, even about groups I quite like, and nobody likes to feel insulted or misunderstood.  But I’m always impressed when someone manages to be polite, gracious, and factual from the start, especially in circumstances like this one.

(Incidentally, a note for members of small political parties who are feeling cross about what I have written about them – if you can Google your party and find my blog, so can potential voters.  So you might want to consider how they will read your comment and how it might make them feel about voting for you.)

Anyway.  Initial positive first impressions aside, let’s see what the ACP has for us.

Their front page starts by pointing us to a media release titled

Australian Country Party Announces its National Expansion as the First, Truly Democratic, Grass Roots Political Party in Australia

I think there are a few other political parties that might take issue with this statement, but let’s continue…

The Party is neither left nor right, nor do we segregate Australians into different groups, we all have equal value and we all have valuable voices. Our candidates and MP’s will be focused on engaging with, listening to and representing their individual electorates and contribute to broad policies, through local consultation, that firstly relate to their electorates and then the greater region, State or Territory and Country.

We then have the usual manifesto about how the major parties have failed Australia, after which the ACP tells us that they plan to be a ‘true third-party alternative’ and a ‘new, broadly inclusive option’.  They see themselves as and ‘alliance of Independent MPs… who are committed to representing the people of their electorate first and offer strong policies before politics’, and it’s notable that while there is still a strong emphasis on infrastructure in regional areas and affordable and accessible services for Australians regardless of where they live (and I think they are still leaning towards the country), they make a point of mentioning cities and towns.

This is a definite pivot, and I think it reflects a lot of things we are seeing in the politics of regional areas.  At the last couple of elections, the ACP has been very much positioning itself to take the place of the National Party, which is seen (with, I think, quite a bit of justification) as having failed regional Australia.  But in the last few elections, we’ve seen a rise in local, independent candidates doing well in rural and regional areas, and making alliances in Parliament.  The ACP has evidently decided to ride this wave, which I suspect is a politically savvy move.

Their ‘About’ page list things that they care about, including small businesses, children and education, seniors, accessible and affordable healthcare, farmers and food security, fair water entitlements, investment in infrastructure in rural areas, and generally a lack of support for people in rural and regional areas.  So they are kind of still trying to replace the Nationals, too, they are just taking a more modern strategy.

(This isn’t a complaint.  I don’t even know what the Nationals are for at this point, and there is a definite need for a political party that pays attention to the needs of people who don’t live in cities.  I’m just not yet sold on ACP as that party.)

Let’s have a look at their mission statement.

The ACP has Core Values which are… a bit dubious on the subject of racism…

Our sustenance, our wealth and our future all reside in the land beneath our feet. This wealth belongs to the Australian people and should always be developed and used in the best interests of the Australian people.

It is the land we share that unites us as one people. Regardless of ethnic or racial origin or how long our ancestors have lived in this country, every person born in Australia is an equal indigenous citizen of this country, including First Australians, with equal rights to share in the opportunities, resources and responsibilities of our land.

I *think* they are aiming for ‘colour-blindness’ here, which is one of those well-intentioned failure modes of people trying not to be racist while not actually talking to people of different backgrounds, but I’m not sure.  They seem to be claiming indigeneity for all Australians, which is… not quite right.   I’m deeply uncomfortable with this, but can’t quite put my finger on why.

Their values also emphasise self-reliance and personal responsibility, on both a personal and a national level.  People ought to work if they can; Australia ought to be self-reliant and not go into debt or rely on imports for basic necessities.  It’s all very Protestant Work Ethic.  They are also against privatisation of utilities.

Also:

Without personal freedom and unfettered opportunity, we cannot have prosperity. Both are dependent on curtailing the size of Government, repealing bureaucratic regulation, destroying terrorism and fighting totalitarianism and globalisation which are the enemies of freedom and the people’s opportunity to succeed

I knew the red tape couldn’t be far away.  Also, can you actually have small government, public ownership of utilities and all that new public infrastructure for rural areas at the same time?

Their objectives again emphasise liberty, democracy and personal responsibility, but also want to improve quality of life for all Australians.  They are a little inconsistent on the environment, however:

Ensure the maintenance of an appropriate balance between economic development and a healthy and sustainable environment;

Ensure that policies involving environmental issues are based on verifiable facts, rigorous scientific inquiry and field visits to ascertain community views;

I wonder what happens when community views clash with verifiable facts and rigorous scientific enquiry?

Incidentally, I was going to say that this sounded like an improvement on their old environmental policies, but actually, it’s word for word identical to what they wrote last time.   The difference is that last time they followed it up with a lengthy policy that was deeply suspicious of all things environmental.

So what do their policies look like this time?

Well, that is an excellent question.

And to this end, they have created a Facebook discussion group, where people can discuss policy positions and hopefully find a consensus.  I applaud this idea – especially as they invite everyone reading to join and contribute, which is pretty charming and inclusive – but it doesn’t give me a lot to work with for this post.  Also, I had a look over there, and there is a lot of discussion at present about whether climate change is real and if we really do need to do anything about it, which is depressing, especially as the moderators seem to be on the side of thinking it’s all a bit exaggerated.

While there are no policy statements on the ACP’s website yet, there are a few themes that are repeated in various lists of commitments, bullet points, and goals.  It’s pretty clear that the ACP wants to improve rural and regional communities.  They are also fairly protectionist – they don’t want Australian lands and assets sold off, and they do want to protect manufacturing, agriculture, and similar.  They want better trade agreements and promotion of Australian grown / Australian made items.  They are  – repeatedly – worried about water, as we all are, I think.

They want to ‘Pursue balanced and fair immigration and refugee policy, to protect rights of both Australians and new Australians’, which is cheering,

And they are worried about the ability of all Australians to feel safe in their country.  This last one is something I’d really like to see them expand on.  Is this about African Gangs Threatening Our Suburbs, or is it about people spray-painting swastikas on Jewish aged care facilities, or threatening people who look Muslim or transgender with violence?  Because I do want all Australians to feel safe in their country, but that can mean very different things to different people.

Which now makes me wonder… is this actually about the right to bear arms?  It’s notable that the ACP, who had a *lot* to say about loosening the gun laws before the Victorian election, and who mention on their Facebook page that the ACP started as an offshoot of the Shooters and Fishers Party, say absolutely nothing about guns on their new website.  This could indicate a change of heart, or it could be a tactful (and tactical) withdrawal from the policy in the wake of Christchurch.  Or it could be something else again.

And here, I think, is the real issue with the ACP in its current form.  It’s trying to position itself as a centrist, inclusive party that represents the interests of regional Australia, which is a perfectly reasonable position to take, and one that I think our political spectrum could benefit from. And part of that inclusiveness is public consultation on policy, which I would argue has its pitfalls, but is still potentially a worthwhile endeavour when you are rebuilding from scratch.

The problem is, it leaves the voter with no real idea what they are going to get if they vote the ACP in at this point, and that, to me, is a problem, especially given the negative impression they left me with in their previous incarnation.  I suspect they’d be a bit too far too the right for my tastes anyway (and I’m very dubious about their environmental views), but I honestly don’t know what the ACP would support if they get in.  While they won’t be at the bottom of my ballot – there are too many other parties working too hard for that honour in this election – they are likely to wind up in the bottom third, just because I don’t like to vote for the unknown.  Lucky dip is a fun game, but not for the Senate.

Eurovision Theme Song as determined by me, very objectively

I still don’t know what to make of the ACP, but a few things are clear.  They are in favour of things rural and regional, they are skeptical about the need to address environmental issues, they like traditional values, and they don’t like bureaucracy.

So here is a lovely Slovakian woman singing about being outside in the beautiful countryside, while being slowly wrapped up in green tape held by people dressed as trees.

Sounds about right, don’t you think?  (And even if not, it’s a fun song…)